MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287218119 · doi:10.1080/14779072.2022.2103541

Icosapent ethyl for reduction of persistent cardiovascular risk: a critical review of major medical society guidelines and statements

2022· review· en· W4287218119 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Miller, Lâle Tokgözoğlu, Klaus G. Parhofer, Yehuda Handelsman, Lawrence A. Leiter, Ulf Landmesser, Eliot A. Brinton, Alberico L. Catapano

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Cardiovascular Therapy · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineStatinAdverse effectIntensive care medicineDiseaseExpert opinionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: REDUCE-IT demonstrated that adding 4 g/day of icosapent ethyl (IPE; purified ethyl ester of eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA]) to statins substantially reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, with few adverse effects. These data prompted numerous leading medical societies across five continents, including the American College of Cardiology, the European Society of Cardiology, and the Japanese Circulation Society, to update their guidelines or scientific/consensus statements to recommend use of IPE for primary and secondary prevention of CVD events. AREAS COVERED: This review discusses the incorporation of IPE into international guidelines and scientific statements, noting areas of consensus and distinction. As background, this review also describes the CVD benefits and risks of IPE as a statin adjunct, and outlines current data regarding the potential mechanisms of CVD risk reduction by EPA (as IPE) beyond triglyceride reduction. EXPERT OPINION/COMMENTARY: IPE is unique among 'triglyceride-lowering' treatments in having strong CVD outcomes data and, therefore, a broad international consensus among professional medical society guidelines and statements endorsing its use for CVD risk reduction in patients generally meeting REDUCE-IT inclusion criteria. IPE should be considered for CVD prevention as a statin adjunct in all such patients. Plain Language SummaryCardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the leading cause of death worldwide. Statin monotherapy is conventionally used first-line to reduce the risk of CV events, such as heart attacks and strokes, in patients with elevated cholesterol. However, considerable risk remains despite appropriate control of cholesterol levels with a statin. Consequently, research has focused on treatment of additional therapeutic targets to reduce this remaining CV risk. One such target is elevated blood triglyceride levels. Unfortunately, most drugs that lower triglyceride levels, such as niacin, fibrates, and mixed omega-3 fatty acids, have not reduced the risk of cardiovascular events in clinical trials when added to statin therapy. However, the omega-3 fatty acid eicosapentaenoic acid ('EPA') administered in highly purified form as icosapent ethyl (IPE) has emerged as the first omega-3 fatty acid, and the first triglyceride-lowering agent to prevent CV events when added to statins. This was demonstrated most notably in the pivotal REDUCE-IT trial, in which IPE reduced the risk of major CV events by 25% in high-risk patients with mildly to moderately elevated triglyceride levels despite statin-controlled cholesterol levels. The mechanisms responsible for this reduction in CV events appear to go far beyond lowering triglyceride levels alone. In light of the positive results from the REDUCE-IT trial, IPE was approved for CV disease risk reduction globally, including in the United States, Canada, European Union, and the United Kingdom, and its use is being increasingly endorsed in United States and international statements and guidelines for managing CV risk. Despite minor differences among guidelines, there is strong consensus that IPE should be considered for use in CVD prevention in all patients who meet the proposed criteria.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.663
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.030
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.317 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Cardiovascular TherapySame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207